Nietzsche - the most important philosopher - discuss

[LaMont Cranston]

piscator, Well, whether it's a salmon or a pollock, please tell the young lady, if you happen to know her, that she has a great ass. I'm sure even Nietzsche would agree that her ass was fine, regardless of what kind of fish she was holding.

By the way, is that the kind of pollock (sometimes spelled pollack) that's known as a walleye pollock?

[LaMont Cranston]

Xamonas, I remember now why I lost interest in Nietzsche. If memory serves, I met a girl aith an ass that looked something like that, and I also discovered wine, marijuana, LSD, poker and a number of other things that were a lot more fun. The years have passed, and I somehow never got back to seriously being interested in FN. Where does the time go?

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

The only way this could have been more obvious is if the fish had been red and a herring.

[colubridae]

piscator, Excuse me, but did you say something? I was busy admiring that girl who's butt crack is partially covered by a salmon.

Just as a point of information, is that a king salmon, a silver, a coho or what?

that's a pollock

[Matthew Shute]

I know very little about your life, but at this time and place, do you want to dedicate years of study so you can carry on at cocktail parties or other gatherings?

...and I suppose you spent years building up your appreciation of Mozart so that you could rivet everyone on the bus by loudly humming his tunes.

Knowledge can indeed be a means to a shallow end; but perhaps the love of knowledge, while probably useless, is far more interesting and noble.

[leo-rcc]

Who?

[Surendra Darathy]

I also discovered wine, marijuana, LSD, poker and a number of other things that were a lot more fun.

Eventually even the hedonist is sated, and turns to eternity for the high that develops no tolerance. It's eternal.

As for tolerance, pun intended.

De rigeur, at the very least, is joining a cult of personality, such as following Jeebus, Jim Jones, or L. Ron Hubbard. At least Nietzsche discourages people from making of his work a cult of personality. Only those with other cults of personality to which to adhere bend FN into that sort of shape. For example, Nietzsche is not likely to sit well with those who a priori hold a low opinion of human beings.

[LaMont Cranston]

Matthew, Actually, I haven't been on a bus in many years. For limited thinkers, knowledge can be the means to a shallow end; it can also be so much more than that. The love of knowledge and attaining knowledge are, for many of us, far from useless. In fact, the love of knowledge and the attainment of same can be interesting, noble, life-enhancing, pleasurable, wonderful, useful and a lot of other things...

[LaMont Cranston]

colubridae, I thought the same thing when he said it was a pollock...

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, Gee, thanks for telling us that pun was intended. We needed that!

Back on that other forum where we first met, there was a thread called "What is hedonism about?" that went for something like 1400 posts. In one sentence, you have demonstrated that, despite your self-proclaimed brilliance, you know nothing about hedonism. One of the many things you fail to understand is that it's possible to appreciate Nietzsche for who he was and what he had to say and to have an extremely high opinion of human beings. Of course, rigid thinkers will, most likely, have a tough time getting next to an idea such as that.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has said that Nietzsche wasn't a brilliant thinker; he was. Does it come as all that much of a suprise that despite his brilliance, some of us do not fall all over ourselves and tout him as the greatest mind of the last 3000 years?

[Surendra Darathy]

Does it come as all that much of a suprise that despite his brilliance, some of us do not fall all over ourselves and tout him as the greatest mind of the last 3000 years?

Only somebody rigidly married to a Top-40 Pop Hits mentality will even be concerned about naming the greatest mind of the last 3000 years. It's not as if you've never tried to send some song and dance on its way up the charts.

Happiness is a very odd thing, as you well know, LaMont. Try to grasp it and it slips through your fingers like dust. I don't think anything that slips through your fingers like dust is capable of dousing the cosmic allness with special sauce.

Your phrasing gives you away: You seem to think everything is a popularity contest, as if you were stuck permanently trying to get the right prom date. Guess what! Popularity, plus a shiny sixpence...

You know the drill. And it is very temporal. Hedonism is the theory that popularity is everything. It's just more metaphysical bullshit from the people who came up with "morality". Now, maybe we can proceed to a genealogy.

Nietzsche may have been among the first people to deconstruct anything. That he chose, among other things "Christianity" must chap the asses of Xtian wibblers, but as somebody once sang, "You can't make a hole until you know what has been taken."

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, If you'd been paying attention to this thread, you would have noticed that it was our buddy, Comte, who said something about Nietzsche being #1 (I think his words were something like "clearly on top"), and he introduced 3000 years as the amount of time.

While I agree with you that happiness can be an "odd" thing, I'm certain that we would disagree about what makes it "odd." The idea that somebody, such as yourself, must have it slip through his fingers is another example of rigid thinking on your part. If you were actually as rational as you wish you were, you might be able to get next to the idea that no special sauce is required, but you'd have to have a better understanding of what happiness is about.

Your phrasing gives you away. That's what makes rigid thinkers such easy targets for Rope-A-Dope. George Foreman and Sonny Liston were classic rigid thinkers in the area of boxing. Other people are classic rigid thinkers in other areas of life.

Yes, I am a student of popular culture, among other things. I have met enough phony intellectuals, university department heads, mensa members, etc. to not be impressed by those types. Those rigid thinkers who are impressed by those people should be condemned to going to endless cocktail parties and counting the number of elbow patches on their cheap sports jackets. Some of us freely choose to listen to Muddy Waters, play poker and drink our rum and cokes.

Once again, you reveal that you know nothing about hedonism. Hedonism is far more than the theory that popularity is everything. (Another example of very limited, rigid thinking on your part.) If somebody is both a hedonist and oh-so-interested in being popular, why would they, as a theist, join forums such as this one, RDF and RS? Thank you for once again demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

PS: I've had the "right date to the prom" for quite awhile. As improbable as it might seem to you, some people actually succeed at such things as love. Other people "hold their own" and waltz around the dance floor with their self-proclaimed brilliance...

[Surendra Darathy]

If somebody is both a hedonist and oh-so-interested in being popular, why would they, as a theist, join forums such as this one, RDF and RS?

Out of a narcissistic impulse to show how great "theism" is? To go up against the intellectuals and pretend to "win"?

I've had the "right date to the prom" for quite awhile. As improbable as it might seem to you, some people actually succeed at such things as love.

That must explain your taking a break from the old trout to mess around online once in a while, and ogle excellent haunches half-covered by a fish.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

For a moment, let's forget about the brilliance of FN and consider your priorities. I know very little about your life, but at this time and place, do you want to dedicate years of study so you can carry on at cocktail parties or other gatherings? Purely from a practical point of view, does it appear that what you might get out of those years of study will be worth the time spent...especially when you undoubtedly have many other possibilities available to you?

The love of knowledge and attaining knowledge are, for many of us, far from useless. In fact, the love of knowledge and the attainment of same can be interesting, noble, life-enhancing, pleasurable, wonderful, useful and a lot of other things...

So you praise the study of knowledge for its own sake but question the use of studying FN? Frankly you haven't really said very much in this thread - other than the fact that you don't like Nietzsche very much. I was hoping for something a little more detailed than personal preference.

[LaMont Cranston]

Xamonas, Yes, I love the pursuit of knowledge. I think it's a truly wonderful thing. After reading a fair amount of FN's stuff and giving him several chances, I think I have a good enough idea of his general concepts. If I don't want to pursue all the subtle nuances that Comte does, I'd say that is a matter of personal taste. In your case, it is you who must decide how much time you want to invest in whatever interests you. If you are, in fact, 47, and you've already looked into FN at least once in your life, it would come as a bit of a suprise to me if you find him more compelling on your next trip around the dance floor. However, I'd be interested to know what your experience is like if you choose to give him another shot.

I'd compare my experience with Freddie to my experience with cocaine. Back in the early 70's, I hung out with a crowd in Berkeley, and drug use was rampant.
Everytime that somebody asked me if I wanted to snort some coke, I said "yes." Nothing ever happened, and quite a few other people have reported to me that they had the same experiences. Fortunately, I was smart enough to never spend any of my own money on something that over-rated.

I've said that FN was brilliant, and I don't care for him much. It really doesn't have anything to do with my being a theist or thinking that the J-Man is cool. It has more to do with being a hedonist. I find FN's life and his thinking to be something of a downer. In the post that follows, I'm going to address some of Surendra's ideas about happiness. Perhaps that will clarify some of this. Take care...